The LA Times reports on “an Iraqi doctor’s experiences”:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq15nov15.story inside Fallujah. (via “Brian Leiter”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/ )
by Chris Bertram on November 16, 2004
The LA Times reports on “an Iraqi doctor’s experiences”:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq15nov15.story inside Fallujah. (via “Brian Leiter”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/ )
{ 24 comments }
Motoko 11.16.04 at 12:05 pm
Member name “blogreader” and password “blogreader” still work.
Matt McGrattan 11.16.04 at 12:55 pm
Thanks motoko.
peter ramus 11.16.04 at 3:38 pm
Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility.
I anticipate that the bracing rationalizations of your man sebastian holsclaw or his ilk will appear here soon enough, featuring the greater good and it should have happened in April and the doctor is clearly exagerating anyhow.
Barry 11.16.04 at 4:48 pm
Peter, I’m surprised that they’re not here now, denouncing the doctor.
kevin donoghue 11.16.04 at 6:35 pm
A quick check reveals that they are busy arguing the case for an invasion of Iran.
nic 11.16.04 at 6:47 pm
The report is clearly worthless because it doesn’t tell us how many of those doctors and how many of those patients were insurgents. You know. The bad, bad people. You have to sort them from the good ones when you’re counting the dead and wounded and inconvenienced. Otherwise, what’s the point of criticising wars.
Something like that.
However, I feel compelled to highlight the positive note in the article: at least the Americans were Not As Bad ™ to the doctors as the Iraqi guardsmen. Hurrah! Praise be to the Lord Bush.
Robin Green 11.16.04 at 9:05 pm
It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government” to authorise (“order”) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities.
If we drop the “by a foreign army” condition, the last person to do this in Iraq was Saddam. How brutal were they then, and how does this compare with the current American/Kurdish assault?
luci phyrr 11.16.04 at 9:12 pm
The TV told me that there were only 12 civilian deaths in Falluja so far. Why would they tell me that if it weren’t true?
Here in the US, the media is doing its usual job of passing on official (dis)information. Not necessarily on purpose, but perhaps because they don’t have any other sources, there’s no US polictical opposition to “peg” a contrary line on, and reporters seem unwilling to challenge assertions with basic logic or factual context. Either b/c they lack such understanding, or don’t want to editorialize, or won’t risk upsetting editors/owners/advertizers/consumers.
So the reporters repeat (seemingly) incongruous facts, like, “all roads into and out of Falluja are sealed by US forces, and only women and children have been allowed to leave.”
Then in the next sentence they’ll report that “everyone has left the city and the only people remaining are foreign terrorists and insurgents.” Doesn’t seem that both things could be true, unless all 150,000 men in Falluja are fighters. Easy to see why it would be convenient for the US population to believe this.
I don’t know what is true, but I know enough to not believe anything that comes from an American official, the US military, or the caretaker Allawi govt.
abb1 11.16.04 at 9:32 pm
They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power. People who died in each case – who they were, how many, how they died – don’t matter, it’s not really the point. It had to be an important symbol and it had to be dramatic enough. Same idea, same barbarism.
ogmb 11.17.04 at 12:52 am
But at least we’re safer now.â„¢
Mark 11.17.04 at 1:56 am
“They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power.”
I’m not sure I understand, abb1; destroying theocratic and nationalist fascists is the same as slaughtering 3000 innocent people? Surely one would like to know the intentions in engaging in combat, and the nature of the parties involved, their plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict during and after battle, etc. Wouldn’t these be relevant to an analysis, or does the left just smear it all together for ease of thought?
John Quiggin attempted to make the same argument in prosecuting the case against fighting Sadr, and got rightly blasted for failing to consider the theocratic fascism and brutality of Sadrs proposed rule. Remember when the left fought against fascism, instead of lending support?
peter ramus 11.17.04 at 3:20 am
I’m not sure I understand…
posted by Mark November 17, 2004 01:56 AM
Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility.
Get it now?
Phoenician in a time of Romans 11.17.04 at 3:31 am
It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government†to authorise (“orderâ€) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities.
Doesn’t that make the Americans the new Hessians?
Phoenician in a time of Romans 11.17.04 at 3:32 am
It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government†to authorise (“orderâ€) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities.
Doesn’t that make the Americans the new Hessians?
abb1 11.17.04 at 9:00 am
‘Fascist’ label is often being applied to both sides of this conflict, Mark.
Brett Bellmore 11.17.04 at 2:15 pm
“Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility” is a predictable consequence of using a known medical facility for military purposes. Which even the doctor kind of half admits was the case.
Matt McGrattan 11.17.04 at 2:37 pm
Brett,
The doctor doesn’t claim the facility was being used for military purposes.
He says that he may have treated some of the insurgents as he was treating anyone who came in.
Treating wounded does not make the medical facility a military target.
Article 1 and Article 2 of the Geneva convention explicitly state that hospitals — even military hospitals for the express purpose of treating enemy soldiers — are to be treated as neutral.
This neutrality is only waived if the hospital is under military occupation and being used as a military facility. If, for example, the insurgents had taken over the medical facility and were using it as a fire base then it would no longer be neutral under the Geneva convention.
The doctor’s statement emphatically does not support the view that that was the case.
Where is your evidence that the medical facility was being used for ‘known miltary purposes’?
Uncle Kvetch 11.17.04 at 5:43 pm
Article 1 and Article 2 of the Geneva convention explicitly state
Awww…isn’t that *quaint*.
Surely one would like to know the intentions in engaging in combat, and the nature of the parties involved, their plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict during and after battle, etc.
Mark, do you happen to know with any certainty the US military’s “plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict” where Fallujah is concerned? I sure as hell don’t–we’re told that most of them “fled,” and that’s about it. Where are they now? Are they being adequately cared for?
Maybe you take the Pentagon’s word for it that there’s nothing to worry about. I don’t.
consigliere 11.17.04 at 6:12 pm
Brett, a predictable consequence of the US scorning the Geneva Conventions is their replacement by lex talionis: Soon we’ll hear of videos of captured US GIs being murdered and mutilated, but you’ll only see them on al Jezeera, because the Pentagon will suppress broadcasts in the US.
Nonesuch 11.17.04 at 6:47 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.hassan/index.html
Nonesuch 11.17.04 at 6:59 pm
Quote:
“They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power. People who died in each case [. . .] Same idea, same barbarism.”
I am firmly against the war, but thankfully I don’t need to believe this moral crock to sustain my position.
In the dichotomy you have set up, only one side chose what the “symbols” were going to be.
These hospitals, schools, and Mosques were occupied by the “Arab resistance” for the maximum shock value that would result from their subsquent targeting.
And where exactly does the murder of an anti-war charity activist fit into your economy of symbols?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.hassan/index.html
Matt McGrattan 11.17.04 at 7:55 pm
Nonesuch:
I don’t think we’ve heard any evidence yet that this medical centre or the hospital were ‘occupied’ by anyone other than the US military. It was the US military that occupied the main hospital in Fallujah.
There is a difference between a medical clinic treating insurgent fighters and the clinic itself being a legitimate target.
The US actions with respect to the hospital and medical clinic in Fallujeh, based on the evidence cited so far, do seem to constitute a clear violation of the Geneva conventions and as such, are war crimes.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the insurgents were occupying mosques and using them to fire upon US troops. In those circumstances I have no personal problem with the US troops returning fire — once the mosque is being used as a place to attack from, it ceases to deserve any special consideration.
abb1 11.17.04 at 8:28 pm
Well, Nonesuch, OK, my comment was a stupid rhetorical comment that can easily be challenged from multiple angles. The angles you picked aren’t even good ones: the murder of the charity activist has absolutely nothing to do with it; are you suggesting that destroying the city was justified by that murder?
However, there is no doubt in my mind that symbolism was a part of it; Fallujah, apparently, has been a symbol of anti-imperialist Arab resistance since the 1920s and has become especially significant in that respect in the last few months. You can’t deny that.
vernaculo 11.18.04 at 8:56 am
To solve these difficulties of evidence and Geneva Convention-based rules of engagement we need officials – just as we have in professional sports – paid professionals themselves, wearing easily identifiable uniforms, unbiased toward either team, and fully cognizant of all appropriate laws and regulations.
Then armchair combatants can concentrate more readily on the thrills and excitement of what is, after all, the thing out of which the metaphor of sport was born.
Comments on this entry are closed.